Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[Darth Geek]

Well, I do agree that Return of the King was really really long. But the big difference is that there was a lot more going on in LOTR, both event and characterwise than in The Hobbit.

It has been a little while since I've seen the movies, but I always felt Fellowship was by far the best one.

"Hey look!  There's some whimsy over there!" 

[Pak-Man]

The big difference is that the Lord of the Rings trilogy took 3 books that were hefty enough that they had to be whittled down significantly to fit into 3+ hour movies. The Hobbit is one much thinner book being stretched out to 3 movies (And I'm not sure that was Jackson's choice). We're going to see EVERYTHING and then some. It's maybe a truer representation of how Tolkien wrote, but it's going to feel underedited.

Personally, I enjoy being in middle-earth enough that I don't mind the occasional diversion of the occasional side-story or rock-giant battle, but the editor in me knows it's bad form.

[Darth Geek]

It does make me wonder if a Guillermo Del Toro version would have been better. I get the idea he would be more likely to have trimmed out stuff.

[Pak-Man]

I'm not sure if it's Jackson saying, "I'm gonna make 3 movies out of this bad boy" or Warner Bros. saying, "Give us a trilogy!" They might have made Del Toro do the same thing.

[Bob]

Damn, these are some interesting movie discussions........the whole reason for a Rifftrax forum.

Yeah!

[Darth Geek]

Well, I thought that the idea was always to have most of the second and third movie be about events between Hobbit and LOTR. Yet they haven't even got to the Lonely Mountain yet at the end of the first movie. And apparently even though Smaug is the big bad, there is more after him?

[Variety of Cells]

I didn't say it was a good idea.  Just that PJ wanted it.

This is what I heard too.  He was editing the second film while shooting it, and Peter realized that there was too much for one movie, so he convinced the studio to extend the production a little and add another film. 

Who knows if that's good or bad.  I could see it being good; two shorter films that focus more on their respective portions of the story.  But it could also be bad and there might be too much filler to make two films.  Or that could be a lie and it could be the studio forcing him to do a third.  Who knows.  I'm hoping that it's the first situation, and this is preventing the second film from being really long and drawn out by making it two films.

Let's see, what other film recently split up a book into multiple movies... can't quite remember... think it started with a T...

...Uh oh.

EDIT:  It feels like it's Peter's idea.  If the studio wanted three movies, they'd get three from the beginning.  I'd be more suspicious if this decision was made after the first film was released, but this decision was made before.  Before they knew if it'd be a success or not.

[Darth Geek]

I can't find the interview now, only read it about a week ago. Anyway, he said that he realized that this was the last time they'd get to do Middle-Earth, any of them--the Tolkien Estate has not sold the rights to any of the other books (so no Silmarillion movie(s)), so everyone wanted to pack it all in this time. 

That...doesn't seem like the best reason to stretch this out and pad it to hell.

[Darth Geek]

Gee, PJ showing bad judgment?

I'd prefer more Bad Taste, actually.

[gojikranz]

well overall i liked it.  its not lord of the rings but the hobbit never was.  i actually feel the main issue in the movie is trying to make it too much like lord of hte rings but i guess that was inevitable.

to anyone who saw it in HFR did you feel like scenes closeup were running a little fast?  i never was bothered in wide shots but close ups really felt like they were running a few FPS too fast.  otherwise it looked stupendous to me.

[Variety of Cells]

well overall i liked it.  its not lord of the rings but the hobbit never was.  i actually feel the main issue in the movie is trying to make it too much like lord of hte rings but i guess that was inevitable.

to anyone who saw it in HFR did you feel like scenes closeup were running a little fast?  i never was bothered in wide shots but close ups really felt like they were running a few FPS too fast.  otherwise it looked stupendous to me.

Just saw it in 2D, after seeing it in HFR.  It looks substantially better in 2D.  None of the weird motion.  And yes, it looked like people were moving strangely fast in the close ups with HFR, but that wasn't the case in 2D.

Also, the image seems more like a whole in 2D instead of being separated pieces, which really helps blend the CGI with the practical photography.  In 3D there's a large difference between the actors and the set, being seperated by the 3D effect along with depth of field.  But in 2D is stops being a set and starts being a hobbit home, or a cave, or Rivendale.  You believe it a lot more, even when it's not CGI.  Something about the HFR made Bilbo's house seem like a cheap set.  But at 24 fps it seems like a rich believable home.  Not quite sure why that is exactly.  Probably has a lot to do with the 3D too.

[Darth Geek]

I only watched it in 2D and 24fps, so I don't have a point of comparison. But I noticed the forest area around Radigast the Brown's house seemed very setlike for some reason. Never felt like that on any of the other forest scenes, here or LOTR.

[arutha1000]

Saw it normal. I liked it, but the padded parts were obvious and damaged the pacing. Wish PJ stuck with just 2 movies, because all this extra stuff isn't very good and distracts from Bilbo. Still fun movie and I will see the next 2.

[Variety of Cells]

Saw it normal. I liked it, but the padded parts were obvious and damaged the pacing. Wish PJ stuck with just 2 movies, because all this extra stuff isn't very good and distracts from Bilbo. Still fun movie and I will see the next 2.

The decision to make 3 movies wasn't made until the first one was in the can already, and almost certainly picture locked (edited together but waiting on cgi and audio). So whatever padding you see was just normal PJ padding, which means without the 3rd movie the second one would most likely have been god awful long.

I'd be happy if he kept the length and pacing of the first film. Hopefully...

[arutha1000]

Can't disagree with you there about PJ not padding the film on purpose. I did see the tedious King Kong. Since he did LoTR, he's apparently fired his editor and anyone else around him who could keep his movies focused and simple. Sometimes success is the worst thing to happen to good or even great people. Consider this almost 3 hour film, where Bilbo was not the main character, has somewhere near 30 minutes of extra scenes for the extended edition.